Staredit Network

No shiz, Sherlock. I won't rape a woman for a quick moment of pleasure, only to spend the next decade of my life locked behind iron bars. In your world, that ten year consequence no longer exists. There is no organized police force to track you down or arrest you, there are no jails to put the criminal in, because all of those are complex systems run by.... *GASP*
The government.
What happens when your house catches fire? The firemen won't come, and your two neighbors with fire extinguishers can't battle the enormous flame that's devouring your house. You're out of luck, pal.
Why would anybody support utilities? This, though not always a part of the government, is a very complex system that involves client and supplier never seeing each other. When your client or supplier doesn't pay or cuts off your service, you don't know where they live. Hell, you probably don't know who they are. You can complain to the secretary, but there are no customer-service laws to ensure you ever get help. Once again, you're out of luck, pal.

A leader-less society simple connot function. As much as you may want to beleive it, there is a large fraction of people who NEED somebody to lead them.

Don't you dare tell me I'm being closed-minded or I'm a pawn of the media, because I simply can't dream and hope for something that will never happen. It's a great idea, sure, but it won't work. It can't work. And it's not worth arguing over.

[center]You think it's human nature that makes people act like that? Nature vs. nurture.
Well, for some aspects, you're right, but we realise that it is wrong, and, usually deny those urges. Those who don't are the true plague of this earth. Just because you WANT something, doesn't mean you NEED it. You'll realise that eventually, and start thinking differently. The reason Communism failed was, partly, because people didn't think. They just DID, without thinking about it.[/center]

We were naturally pack animal predators, meaning we naturally have a leader, and we naturally want to be that leader.

[center]And in an Anarchist society, we're all leaders.[/center]

sometimes i naturally want to have a frontal fun hole :/

*edit* if you are all leaders, than you are all back to being civilians, oh and ive been in an rp guild on a mmo where most of the leaders were equal, therefore operated by respect or just being good, and let me tell you................IT DIDNT WORK OUT!, well only cause of me :>

Not really. You can't be a leader if you don't....
Lead anybody.

That should be obvious.

[center]This thread's being replied to at &Totse speed.
Maybe you don't understand my use of the word leader. Usually the leader has final say in what happens. Well if everyone had a say in what happens, who's the 'leader'? That's right, everybody.[/center]

In a small group of maybe twenty people at maximum, you can function leaderless. But spread out across a whole society, a country even, it simply can't work. You need people to organize the rest.

[center]You can have a representitive to help organize with other groups. This representitive has no more power over decisions than you or me.

Really, arguing about whether Anarchy will work, or not, doesn't get us anywhere. Look at what happened on v5, people can make themselves global mods, and things started off bad, but they eventually realised what they were doing. Now it's doing alright.[/center]

I'm sorry but whatever you tried to say here just didn't process correctly. You might be making a valid point, could you please rephrase?

[center]Basically what I was saying is that it has to be tried for us to get to a decision on whether it works, or not.
v5 is a self-moderated community, and after people took it upon themselves to clean the place up a bit, it's running fine. Syphon mentioned something about this in the 'Lack of IP' post.

Syphon (Global Moderator)
…but this is an exciting time for us to see if we can be mature able everyone being equal and we can't do anything about them if they become imature.

Josh (Global Moderator)
Anyways, I agree with Syphon here, lets be grown ups11!!1one

euro (Global Moderator)
Syphon I fully agree with you here. Right now what we have here on SEN v5 is Libertarian Socialism (or Anarchism from the site in nuclearRabbit's profile) Everyone is equal, no government/authority. Its up to us to act maturely and keep this working.

Syphon (Global Moderator)
Actually I've always wanted to cunduct an experiment by setting up a site where everyone can access the ACP and see how it turns out. Socialism for teh win.

euro (Global Moderator)
Exactly. Its the ideal society. I learned a hell of a lot from nuke and her little site. Anarchism for teh win!
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html - all are answered in here.

There ya have it.[/center]

I have yet to reply to this thread, but it seems to have turned into an argument about the nature of leadership, so I'd like to add my opinions on this.

No matter how big the group, or the purpose of the group, there are ALWAYS going to be dominant and submissive people. Look at any group of friends, there is always one of them who tends to make more of the decisions and has the least trouble getting the others to cooperate. The only way EVERYONE could be a leader is if EVERYONE was isolated. The idea that everyone could function equally in any kind of group is wrong. You can not expect everyone to have an open mind and to consider other possiblities. There are people out there (and I've met my share) who only care about themselves and won't consider anyone else's well being, no matter what the rules are.

Bun-bun, in the v5 analogy, you said that people came to the conclusion that they need to watch their own actions and behave responsibly. If you didn't notice, new people are always coming and are always pushing the limits. Also, the one's who "agreed" to this have not necessarily been able to resist the urge to spam and edit other posts. And who's to say it will last? Wasn't that only thought up a couple of weeks ago? If you have a fight with your boyfriend/girlfriend, then you two may agree to be nice to eachother for awhile, but eventually, you will fight again.

Humans function best when there are a few leaders and a great number of followers. Let's use the Native American Indian tribes as an example. Suppose one tribe decided that they would throw ranks to the wind, and make everything as equal as possible. Things might be fine for awhile. But what if they were attacked by a rival tribe? The organization necessary to counter attack would be gone. It would be every man for himself, and they would surely lose against an organized effort. Humans NEEEEEED the pack mentality. Whether we like to admit it or not, we are happiest when we follow a leader or when we are that leader. Even if we like to be left alone most of the time, wouldn't you rather the responsibility of a big issue fall in the leader's lap than your own? You need leadership from one or a few people to make sure organization succeeds, and who's word overrides the chaotic babble of a group in stress.

so what does a forum on the interent have to do with whether or not anarchy can function in the REAL world

[center]Doody, these new people are coming and 'pushing the limits' because they don't know how everything works, or how they're expected to act. It all boils down to nature vs. nurture, in my eyes. Being born into an Anarchist society, you're going to know the difference between right and wrong, and be expected to use that knowledge. You're going to learn how the society works, and how to keep it working.
Me sitting here, typing away, showing my view of things isn't going to persuade any of you to think any differently. I'm not going to try to change your views, and I still respect your way of thinking. All I'm trying to do is educate you.[/center]

Anarchy will usually lead to more anarchy after things are settled because people just can't organize themselves without higher authority.

You've been brainwashed by pseudo intellectuals. Anarchy is the worst thing the left wing has ever came up with. And coming from some who's a liberal, that's saying a lot. I'm actually shocked to see someone actually know what anarchy is and still some how have the audacity to support it.

This is either greater than or = to how bad that super capitalist kid was a few months ago. I still don't think he had the maturity to admit he was wrong.

I think that the best example of anarchy is wikipedia.

Sure wikipedia has SysOps, but if a pratical democratic system could be devised for stuff like locking things and banning people, they wouldn't even need those.

The speed of this topic really annoys me, it makes it so I don't have the time to join in at all.

ADDITION:
BTW, Loser_Musician, that last post of yours had no positive intelligent content what so ever. It was pure flame and no debate. If the tone was harsher I'd report it immediately.

ADDITION:
meh, reported for spam, and yes it is partially because your on the opposing side.

It's called communism.



Are you trying to say that the government is putting fake things on the news and TV?

Do you think it's hard to do? The White House can release some 'report' on something that could be entirely fabricated, and who would know besides them? They keep a tight lid on plenty of things, which pretty much defeats the point of electing a leader in the first place.

It's usually the news station that gets the info.

I have been reading through this thread, and I would like to rebuke some of the "arguments" (More like random blashphemous excuses of debates) here, because they are rather, PaThEtIc



Not to cause any moral decay, but Demaris....... I have viewed your replies, and i'm sorry to say, but you are the one that has no grasp of what is being said here. Anarchy works perfectly. Do you think any tribes in Africa, Australia, or even Native Americans (before the US kicked them into reservations) had anyone to rule over them like a government does? And look at them? They are nice to themselves, and others who come to observe them (Just a few aren't. But that's in their NATURE) Please refrain from trying to say that their chiefs rule over them like a government, because that is the most pathetic excuse of an argument that anyone could ever come up with. The chiefs do absolutely nothing. Except take up space, and make the major decisions (Such as war with other tribes and all that mumbo jumbo)

Calling someone brainwashed is an immature way to debate? Saying that you're disgusted with someone's replies, is not a better way either, you nimrod. But it is the truth. Most of the American people believe that the war in Iraq is going horrible and such. But the media perverts the minds of we Americans, and makes us believe it's horrible (I know many people over there, and they say it's not entirely bad) when it's not as bad as they say it is. We still should not be in that place, but that's a different discussion.

And may I ask you what you have pointed out? Nothing? I think that is the word to best use in your description. You have pointed absolutelly nothing out. You've let all the "intelligent" people here, do it for you. So don't claim that Bun-bun has not done anything to try to enlighten any of you. Because that is all that Bun-Bun has done. Showed you the truth of what Anarchism is. To bad Mr. Loser-Musician cannot comprehend that attacking someone, and not their reply, is against the rules here at this dull place. And it's also bad how he dogs on this "super capitalist kid that can never admit they were wrong", when it's also the same for him.

Bun-bun has been telling you exactly what to do. Take out the powers of the nation, and let the people fix it themselves. To bad you're not bright enough to understand that once Anarchy is in control, the corruption will balance out, and the people will form a new government.



Hence, the best form of society.

And yes. The government put's fake things on the news and T.V. all the time. Look at adds.. Everyone on there is fake. They have been photographed, and photoshopped to make themselves something they are not.

To me, that is being as fake as you can be.

Yeah, because Ted Kennedy definitely didn't call his lawyer before calling the police, and the Cheney hunting story was released to NBC, not a local Texas land owner. And let's not forget the 'foiled' attack in San Francisco in 2002.

People with power are often loathe to divulge the more sensitive information, whether it's their responsibility to do so or not.

Edit: Added quote to post.

I do hope you mean the L.A. one that was spoken of.. When Bush "saved" the "Liberty Building" in L.A.

Liberty building? There is no such thing. Oh..! I think he meant the Library building *Smacks head* Of course. And it was a government owned facility?

Private Banks are owned by the government?

Yeah, L.A. I thought of San Francisco for some reason. And I'm in agreeance that it's complete nonsense. This administration hasn't been particularly adept at covering things up.